On 28/11/16 13:01, Paul Durrant wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrew Cooper >> Sent: 28 November 2016 12:58 >> To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com>; Xen-devel <xen- >> de...@lists.xen.org> >> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>; Tim (Xen.org) <t...@xen.org>; Jun >> Nakajima <jun.nakaj...@intel.com>; Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/19] x86/hvm: Avoid __hvm_copy() raising #PF >> behind the emulators back >> >> On 28/11/16 11:56, Paul Durrant wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.coop...@citrix.com] >>>> Sent: 28 November 2016 11:14 >>>> To: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org> >>>> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Jan Beulich >>>> <jbeul...@suse.com>; Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com>; Tim >>>> (Xen.org) <t...@xen.org>; Jun Nakajima <jun.nakaj...@intel.com>; >> Kevin >>>> Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com> >>>> Subject: [PATCH v2 17/19] x86/hvm: Avoid __hvm_copy() raising #PF >> behind >>>> the emulators back >>>> >>>> Drop the call to hvm_inject_page_fault() in __hvm_copy(), and require >>>> callers >>>> to inject the pagefault themselves. >>>> >>>> No functional change. >>> That's not the way it looks on the face of it. You've indeed removed the >>> call >> to hvm_inject_page_fault() but some of the callers now call >> x86_emul_pagefault(). I'd call that a functional change... clearly the change >> you intended, but still a functional change. >> >> Hmm - I suppose I am confusing no functional change in the hypervisor >> with no functional change as observed by a guest. >> > Yes, I was thinking from the PoV of someone looking at this patch years later > and saying 'hang on a minute...'. Saying 'no guest-observable behavioural > change' is much clearer I think.
I will double check all of the patches and clarify it in the commit messages. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
